>>> I would agree with your assessment, but the other part that I
>>> cannot figure,
>>> is why have a switch statement? It does nothing except fall
>>> straight through
>>> to the default case.
>>
>>It doesn't for the numbers 0..9.
>
> Hang on, there is no mention of code between the switch, and the default, 
> so
> I imagine that is all empty. Hence the switch statement will generate a
> label to the default, which will always be executed, and in my mind the 
> code
> generated by the switch statement should be optimised out by the compiler
> for this reason. Hence the code becomes an if ... else ... construct only,
> which as Wouter noted handles 0..9. There is no code to handle cases 
> outside
> these numbers at all.
>
> what have I missed ?

The the single statement that follows the 'switch( )' starts with 'default:' 
and ends with the semicolon that terminates the else clause of the if.

> Bob said
>>And, you are also right about the mailroom reassignment.
>
> You mean the originator of the code did get re-assigned, or did you wish 
> he
> had been :))

Luckily, this is only an example of such evil, and was never actually 
perpetrated on anyone.

Bob Ammerman
RAm Systems


-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist